Truck drivers strike in Shanghai, China [Archive]

View Full Version : Truck drivers strike in Shanghai, China

China studen

20th April 2011, 19:50

Truck drivers strike in Shanghai, China

April 20, 2011, due to rising oil prices, all kinds of arbitrary charges, finally caught the truck industry in Shanghai all the rage! !
April 20, 2011 the strike officially began at 10:00 am
Evacuation of the police! !
Later, rumors police killed a man, sparked anger truck drivers! !
Starts in each port traffic jam door smashed cars! !

上海集装箱司机集会要求运费上涨
2011年04月20日
　　【财新网】（见习记者王晓庆）4月20日，由于油价等运营成本上涨挤压生存空间，上海部分为集装箱运货的卡车司机，自早上9点半开始，在主要集装箱集散地聚集，要求货运公司或工厂提高运输费用。
　　财新记者在上海浦西宝山区水产路中集物流公司一处集合点了解到，约有几百名集装箱司机在此聚集，并有大量公安维持秩序，到下午时多数司机已散去。此外，在浦东凌桥电影院、外高桥保税区等地也有司机聚集。
　　一位参与集会的货运司机告诉财新记者，由于油价上涨等因素挤压卡车司机利润，国内成品油自2010年底上调后，司机们发现“已经不赚钱了。”
　　自2010年10月以来，国家发改委四次提高油价，汽柴油累计每吨提价1390元和1270元，累计上调幅度超过15％。进入2011年涨价两次，包括2月20日加汽柴油价格每吨各上调350元，涨幅4.5％，及4月7日将汽柴油每吨分别提价500元和400元，上调了5.63%和4.9%。
　　多名参与集会的司机告诉财新记者，这些个体的集装箱司机大多以40万-50万元的价格购买集装箱卡车投入运营，当工厂有货物运输要求时，一般由货运公司承接，再转给运输公司调集运力。运输公司召集个体集装箱卡车运输，并支付给他们一定的运输费。集装箱卡车使用柴油，油耗是其主要的运营成本，仅此一项，每个月就达3万-4万元。在2010年底油价上涨前，每辆车如运营正常，每月约能获得大概在4000元－5000元之间的纯收入。
　　但油价上涨后，司机们获得的运输费用并没有相应增加，收入收到影响，有些车主本身并不开车，而另聘司机，需要支付司机的费用就要4000多元，则收入所剩无几。
　　此次参与集会的司机希望货运公司和厂方能提高运输费用，缓解油价上涨压力的传导。

http://www.huaihaisc.com/news/1/2011/12492.html

http://image.17173.com/bbs/v1/2011/04/20/1303285665324.jpg

http://image.17173.com/bbs/v1/2011/04/20/1303285665376.jpg
http://image.17173.com/bbs/v1/2011/04/20/1303285666986.jpg

http://image.17173.com/bbs/v1/2011/04/20/1303285717113.jpg
http://image.17173.com/bbs/v1/2011/04/20/1303285717705.jpg
http://image.17173.com/bbs/v1/2011/04/20/1303285717240.jpg
http://image.17173.com/bbs/v1/2011/04/20/1303285717616.jpg
http://image.17173.com/bbs/v1/2011/04/20/1303285717948.jpg
http://image.17173.com/bbs/v1/2011/04/20/1303285767961.jpg

http://image.17173.com/bbs/v1/2011/04/20/1303285768954.jpg
http://image.17173.com/bbs/v1/2011/04/20/1303285768665.jpg
http://image.17173.com/bbs/v1/2011/04/20/1303285768402.jpg

http://image.17173.com/bbs/v1/2011/04/20/1303285790355.jpg
http://image.17173.com/bbs/v1/2011/04/20/1303285790863.jpg
http://image.17173.com/bbs/v1/2011/04/20/1303285790796.jpg
http://image.17173.com/bbs/v1/2011/04/20/1303285790963.jpg
http://image.17173.com/bbs/v1/2011/04/20/1303285798883.jpg

NoOneIsIllegal

20th April 2011, 22:35

I didn't see SunFarStar waving a glorious red flag :(

Red Future

20th April 2011, 22:42

Interesting how unlike the Maoist days those "socialist" police look..they look like the security forces of any Capitalist nation.

Crux

20th April 2011, 23:05

http://chinaworker.info/zh/content/news/1432/

Red Future: This regime cracks down on Maoists. Yet some in the ML tradition still seem content in defending the regime.

The Vegan Marxist

20th April 2011, 23:33

http://chinaworker.info/zh/content/news/1432/

Red Future: This regime cracks down on Maoists. Yet some in the ML tradition still seem content in defending the regime.

You're annoying.

We defend China against imperialism and imperialist propaganda. We also oppose any strikes or protests that call for more privatization, rather than less.

As ML's, we stand very clear on our support in the people's right to self-determination. Meaning, if the Chinese people choose to band together to overthrow the Chinese State in order to bring it forward, then so be it.

If these strikes taking place are calling for greater wages and better participation in the workforce, then we're all for this. Your anti-ML dogmatism allows you to disregard this though, I guess.

DaringMehring

21st April 2011, 01:31

Crux

21st April 2011, 08:53

You're annoying.

We defend China against imperialism and imperialist propaganda. We also oppose any strikes or protests that call for more privatization, rather than less.

As ML's, we stand very clear on our support in the people's right to self-determination. Meaning, if the Chinese people choose to band together to overthrow the Chinese State in order to bring it forward, then so be it.

If these strikes taking place are calling for greater wages and better participation in the workforce, then we're all for this. Your anti-ML dogmatism allows you to disregard this though, I guess.
Where do you think your comrade Hu Jintao stands on this? After all you made the claim that he is on the "left" of the CCP, or have you had to revise your opinion on this as well? One comrade from PSL even made the interesting claim that CCP supposedly today are a vanguard party of the working class.

Also your claim rings with no small hypocrisy, given your position on the protests against the privatizations that took place in 89. Of course it is apparent you choose what you think is "imperialist propaganda" based on what you can get away with. There is no doubt in my mind that some of you would suddenly change your position if there was an actual uprising, if you find yourself in a undefensible position. But then again, you might also not.

khad

21st April 2011, 09:14

SacRedMan

21st April 2011, 09:43

Workers's struggle against a worker's republic :confused:

Red Future

21st April 2011, 12:07

Workers's struggle against a worker's republic :confused:

Not been a workers republic for a long time now

Crux

21st April 2011, 13:54

Leave it to a sectarian blowhard to turn a report about a worker's action occurring right now in China into his own little western faction's pissing contest.

Please, more on the Shanghai strikers and less on useless bullshit no one cares about.

Oh yeah, and thread moved to Workers' Struggles.
I know which side you will be on when the worker's in China rise. I am just highlighting the hypocrisy when apologists for the regime claim to defend worker's struggle against the regime.

The Vegan Marxist

21st April 2011, 21:40

Where do you think your comrade Hu Jintao stands on this? After all you made the claim that he is on the "left" of the CCP, or have you had to revise your opinion on this as well? One comrade from PSL even made the interesting claim that CCP supposedly today are a vanguard party of the working class.

Also your claim rings with no small hypocrisy, given your position on the protests against the privatizations that took place in 89. Of course it is apparent you choose what you think is "imperialist propaganda" based on what you can get away with. There is no doubt in my mind that some of you would suddenly change your position if there was an actual uprising, if you find yourself in a undefensible position. But then again, you might also not.

Your ignorance amuses me.

Hu Jintao has been relatively a leftist among the CCP. You can't deny this when it was Hu Jintao and Wen Jiabo were of those advocating great worker rights among the SEZ's and sided with the workers when they came out to strike against the private corporations there. It was Wen Jiabo who demanded for the corporations to adhere to the worker's demands. Notice that every worker strike in China has been successful!

Though, I'll admit that President Jintao has been dulling down lately. It's made me quite sad to see such. Of course, dogmatists like you actually believe they're making a point when they make the comment "or have you had to revise your opinion on this as well?". Never do you people actually believe conditions can change in a country that either advances or lowers the country and its leadership. Right now I'm hoping Xi Jinping will do better as leader in 2012. Though, even with him being more pro-Maoism than Hu Jintao, you still dislike Maoism. So, either way, I don't give a shit what you think. ;)

Just like I don't give a shit what your Trotskyite line is on the 1989 counterrevolution in China. If you want to support a bunch of Western-educated students who called for more privatization, by all means do so. Just be sure you know which end of the gun you're in when doing so.

Crux

21st April 2011, 22:01

Your ignorance amuses me.

Hu Jintao has been relatively a leftist among the CCP. You can't deny this when it was Hu Jintao and Wen Jiabo were of those advocating great worker rights among the SEZ's and sided with the workers when they came out to strike against the private corporations there. It was Wen Jiabo who demanded for the corporations to adhere to the worker's demands. Notice that every worker strike in China has been successful!

Though, I'll admit that President Jintao has been dulling down lately. It's made me quite sad to see such. Of course, dogmatists like you actually believe they're making a point when they make the comment "or have you had to revise your opinion on this as well?". Never do you people actually believe conditions can change in a country that either advances or lowers the country and its leadership. Right now I'm hoping Xi Jinping will do better as leader in 2012. Though, even with him being more pro-Maoism than Hu Jintao, you still dislike Maoism. So, either way, I don't give a shit what you think. ;)

Just like I don't give a shit what your Trotskyite line is on the 1989 counterrevolution in China. If you want to support a bunch of Western-educated students who called for more privatization, by all means do so. Just be sure you know which end of the gun you're in when doing so.
I clearly must have stepped on your CCP-bureaucrat loving toes. Yes, I oppose Maoism, but unlike you I can tell a black cat from a white cat.

Every worker's strike in china has been sucessfull? Hahahaha. See this is why your "support" for worker's rights in china becomes such a joke. I am sure Zhao Dongming (http://chinaworker.info/en/content/news/1231/) would not be as amused by your fairytales. Or the Foxconn Workers (http://chinaworker.info/en/content/news/1310/&usg=ALkJrhjA2FhD7DNJrt_Pau0qSc5c73XWRw). I could go on. But perhaps you are just just as anti-worker as those you defend, so what's the use? Your embrace of "socialism with chinese characteristics" (rather than maoism) will probably be just as firm. So you being "all for" the strikes in Shanghai is nothing more than a bad joke.

The Vegan Marxist

21st April 2011, 22:32

Yeah, that's right Majkovskij, give me bad rep and have a tantrum. Since that's all you fake leftists actually can do.

Yes, suicides in Foxconn are still a big problem. But by success, I clearly meant that the worker's demands were met. Though, much more is needed. Of course, people like you won't make such things clear and more than likely just keep giving people neg rep, thinking they're actually proving themselves here. :rolleyes:

Though, this section of an article on the China's economy suffices in understanding Foxconn in China:

Understanding Foxconn

A company called Foxconn has been in the news a great deal lately. Foxconn makes parts for Apple products, including the screens for Ipads. Much of this manufacturing work is done in factories in China, some of which are quite huge. One factory in Shenzhen, China, employs 400,000 workers.

Foxconn has been in the news because of a series of suicides among its workforce. The workers are under a great deal of stress because they work a lot of overtime and because the workplace regime is very draconian. There are rumors that workers are not even allowed to talk to one another during shifts. And the workers live in dormitories owned by Foxconn. Until very recently, wages at Foxconn were only about $130 per month, plus overtime.

We know why factories in the United States are allowed to pay their workers low salaries and to impose bad working conditions: our government is ultimately not our government at all, but the government of the capitalists. But unless this is also how things are in China, it seems at first glance hard to understand how Foxconn could be allowed to operate.

Still, it can hardly be suggested that the government of China was beholden to Foxconn when Foxconn opened its factories in China. In 1984, when the Shenzhen factory was formed, private enterprise in China still barely existed. Further, Foxconn is not even owned by mainland Chinese, but by Taipei capitalists. Even in recent years, relations between China and Taipei are rocky. It is hardly to be suggested that the capitalists who are undoubtedly the masters in Taipei are also the masters in the rest of China. Still less can it be suggested that this was the case in 1984.

So, if Foxconn is not allowed to operate in China for the benefit of Foxconn’s owners, for whose benefit is it allowed to operate? The answer, bizarrely enough, is the workers. We saw before precisely how low the income of Chinese farmers was in 1978. By comparison to that, the $4 a day which Foxconn was until recently paying its employees was a lot of money. Add into this overtime, and it was possible for workers to put aside a small stake by working at Foxconn. And, indeed, that is what workers have traditionally done: Most of the Foxconn workforce is people in their twenties hoping to put aside some savings. In fact, although Western commentators are concerned at the amount of overtime, people interviewing the workers invariably find that the overtime is what draws workers to Foxconn.

But if the workers at Foxconn are so glad of the jobs, why are there so many suicides? The answer to this is simply that times change. In 1984, a young person coming from a communal farm where it was never possible to have very much looked at the long hours and difficult working conditions in Foxconn as a small price to put aside some savings. But as China has gotten more and more prosperous, the contradiction between the difficult conditions at Foxconn and the increasing prosperity of the country as a whole has become far more acute.

Foxconn recently promised a substantial hike in wages. They have said that this wage hike was long planned as a response to labor shortages. That statement is not to be taken seriously. The wage hike is a result of political pressure. The Western media has given a great deal of attention to the pressure exerted on Foxconn, and on its major customer, Apple, outside of China. But there has been enormous political pressure within China, as well.

http://marxistleninist.wordpress.com/2010/06/14/the-chinese-economy-in-1978/

Crux

21st April 2011, 22:57

The Vegan Marxist

21st April 2011, 23:04

Yes, you are clearly a social democrat. Foxconn = progress for chinese worker's. It would be amusing if it wasn't for the circumstances under which this double-speak is being used. The erosion of the planned economy has been a long and drawn out process, obviously too difficult for little cheerleaders like you to comprehend. After they call themselfes the Communist Party and have a red flag, I see why you would be confused.

Also you have actually failed, just as the article does to respond to charges, comrade "maoist". I've thrown no tantrum, I just pointed out that you and your ilk are no friends of the chinese working class. One of the glaring features of the article is in fact it's lack of a call for any kind of alternative to the private enterpises, indeed it praises them as progressive, while ambigiously claiming they are becoming "less valid" but making no reference at all to class struggle. Even the Mensheviks of olde were more marxist than that.

:laugh::laugh::laugh:

First of all, I NEVER made the claim that "Foxconn = progress for chinese worker's." So please, although I'm sure you can't help yourself from being an absolute troll, don't put words in my mouth. In fact, I wan't to see worker control over Foxconn, or at least nationalized to take the Taipei capitalists out of control. Though, that won't happen since Taiwan have different perspectives of how the economy should be run than that of the CCP.

Second of all, you clearly only read the one section of the article, which I made clear that this was only one section of the article, or you wouldn't have made this ignorant comment: "One of the glaring features of the article is in fact it's lack of a call for any kind of alternative to the private enterpises," and then make another ignorant comment right after, stating "indeed it praises them as progressive," which isn't true at all. Of course, you would know this if you actually READ the ENTIRE article.

But hey, I guess you're more into ignorance and being a troll than actually taking anything objectively. No matter. I promise I won't feel sorry for you or your Trot buddies.

Crux

21st April 2011, 23:19

:laugh::laugh::laugh:

First of all, I NEVER made the claim that "Foxconn = progress for chinese worker's." So please, although I'm sure you can't help yourself from being an absolute troll, don't put words in my mouth. In fact, I wan't to see worker control over Foxconn, or at least nationalized to take the Taipei capitalists out of control. Though, that won't happen since Taiwan have different perspectives of how the economy should be run than that of the CCP.

Second of all, you clearly only read the one section of the article, which I made clear that this was only one section of the article, or you wouldn't have made this ignorant comment: "One of the glaring features of the article is in fact it's lack of a call for any kind of alternative to the private enterpises," and then make another ignorant comment right after, stating "indeed it praises them as progressive," which isn't true at all. Of course, you would know this if you actually READ the ENTIRE article.

But hey, I guess you're more into ignorance and being a troll than actually taking anything objectively. No matter. I promise I won't feel sorry for you or your Trot buddies.
Your insults without substance hardly deserves a response and your "support" for nationalization is about as belivieable as Labours claim to represent the working class, even if you weren't dishonest, it's appraent that you are not. Now this is what the article says:

"We know why factories in the United States are allowed to pay their workers low salaries and to impose bad working conditions: our government is ultimately not our government at all, but the government of the capitalists. But unless this is also how things are in China, it seems at first glance hard to understand how Foxconn could be allowed to operate."
Clearly implying that China would be a genuine worker's government. Of course that's not disagreeable to someone such as yourself.

And you can't suggest with a straight face this is not apologism for Foxconn:
So, if Foxconn is not allowed to operate in China for the benefit of Foxconn’s owners, for whose benefit is it allowed to operate? The answer, bizarrely enough, is the workers. We saw before precisely how low the income of Chinese farmers was in 1978. By comparison to that, the $4 a day which Foxconn was until recently paying its employees was a lot of money. Add into this overtime, and it was possible for workers to put aside a small stake by working at Foxconn. And, indeed, that is what workers have traditionally done: Most of the Foxconn workforce is people in their twenties hoping to put aside some savings. In fact, although Western commentators are concerned at the amount of overtime, people interviewing the workers invariably find that the overtime is what draws workers to Foxconn.

That you or the author fails to resolve this contradiction between developing the chinese industry and the exploitation that foreign and domestic capitalists exert as well as being incapable to understand the character of the regime just shows what kind of "socialists" you are. So what is it 300 years of capitalism before socialism can be achieved?

Crux

22nd April 2011, 13:23

Now, on the actual issue of this thread:

Strike and blockade by Shanghai truck drivers

Friday, 22 April 2011.
Blockade at world’s biggest container port • Mass arrests and police repression

Chinaworker.info reporters

Up to two thousand truck drivers have staged a three-day strike over rising fuel prices and cargo fees at the world’s busiest port in Shanghai. The drivers set up a blockade in the Pudong district of the city on 20 April, a particularly daring action in the midst of a state crackdown driven by the Chinese regime’s fears that a Middle Eastern-style popular uprising could develop out of smaller localised protests.

The drivers are in angry mood following several fuel price rises in recent months. About 2,000 truck drivers battled baton-wielding police at a road intersection near the port, reported Reuters, quoting two drivers who were at the protest. Strikers reportedly smashed the windows of trucks belonging to non-strikers on Wednesday, the first day of their action.

There were reports of several arrests and of strikers being beaten by police. Amid signs the strike action has already affected exports from the giant port, there are indications police will step up repression in a bid to end the strike. An AFP report, Friday 22 April, quoted a witness saying, “It’s chaotic here now. Policemen are coming with police cars ... they tried to disperse the people.”
http://www.chinaworker.info/get_img?NrArticle=1434&NrImage=9
Long delays to port as a result of the blockade by truck drivers

Rising fuel prices and fees

The drivers, mostly private contractors, say their incomes have been squeezed by four increases in the government-set price of diesel since October. They are also protesting against the high handling fees charged by private logistics companies at the port. Drivers accuse the firms of price-fixing and complain bitterly that these increases undermine their possibilities to make a living. The most recent fuel price increase of 5.5 percent came two weeks ago, and this seems to have been the ‘final straw’ for the drivers. The government said the increases in diesel and gasoline prices – lifting them to a record high – were due to rising global crude oil prices as a result of uncertainty in the Middle East.

“The market is just a mess now,” one driver told Reuters. “We cannot make any money anymore,” said another.

Rumours have circulated to the effect that negotiations have been initiated but at this stage this appears not to be the case. “We are continuing our strike,” a 38-year-old truck driver surnamed Liu told Reuters. “There has been no response from the government or anybody else. There’s nothing we can do.”

On Thursday it was reported that 500 truck drivers headed to another Shanghai port, Yangshan, to spread the protest. State-controlled media has typically refused to report on the strike fearing such protests could spread to other sectors. A handful of online news sites that carried reports had deleted them after a short time, under orders from the propaganda office. Global Times – a government mouthpiece published in English for foreigners – did report the strike, quoting a denial from Shanghai police of claims on the Internet that three drivers had been beaten to death by police.

http://www.chinaworker.info/get_img?NrArticle=1434&NrImage=8
Police repression against striking workers

Possible effects – economic and political

The strike has already demonstrated the potential power of united action by workers, despite the difficulties this poses in a repressive police state like China. An executive based at the port told Reuters on Friday that the strike action was already having an effect on exports.

“The strike has delayed exports and many ships cannot take on a full load before leaving,” said Wei Yujun, of China Star Distribution Center (Shanghai) Co.

“For example, if one ship carries 5,000 containers en route to Hong Kong and the US, now they can only carry 1,000 or 2,000 containers,” Wei added.

Shanghai overtook Singapore last year to become the world’s largest container port by volume. The publicly listed Shanghai International Port (Group) Co Ltd is 44.23 percent owned by the Shanghai Municipal Government.

China’s rulers are intensely nervous about public unrest over rising prices, particularly following recent events in the Arab world. The consumer price index rose 5.4 percent year-on-year in March, which is the fastest pace for almost three years and well above the government’s 2011 target of 4 percent.

This is the second incident of large-scale unrest in Shanghai in a week. Last week saw a tense standoff between around 4,000 angry youth and police in the suburb of Jiuting. This shows the rising discontent – over price rises, unaffordable housing, aggressive policing and corrupt officials – even in China’s richest city.

As the New York Times commented, the Shanghai strike “also suggests that tensions are growing in China over the gulf between the nation’s tiny elite and its poor majority. Incomes are rising, but inflation is squeezing families and small business people like self-employed truckers, while profits at major state-owned companies are higher than ever.”

Taxi strikes 2008

There are similarities with this strike and the taxi drivers’ strike that erupted in the western city of Chongqing in 2008. That also centred on private contract drivers, although in reality these ‘independent’ operators – following the privatization of much local urban transportation – are virtually slaves of the big taxi companies and a harsh regime of licensing fees, which means most of their daily fare income is passed on to the bosses. The Chongqing strike triggered a wave of copycat strikes by taxi drivers and even bus drivers in over a dozen cities across China including Shanghai and Guangzhou.

Clearly, the authorities fear something similar may happen in this case. Shanghai media said Friday that car-rental fees paid by the city’s taxi drivers to taxi companies would be reduced starting May 1, in an apparent bid to keep the protests from spreading. Shanghai taxi drivers will pay their companies 8,200 yuan (US$1,262) each month, a reduction of 300 yuan, the Shanghai Daily reported.

The central government is also wary of a new wave of industrial strikes like those that shook the country’s export industry one year ago. Yet as many commentators point out, there is quite a high likelihood of more strikes this year.

“Workers have still not won the right to set up independent unions and this was the main demand of last year's strikes in the motor industry,” said Chen Lizhi of chinaworker.info. “Now, price increases are cancelling out a large part of the wage rises that some workers have won in recent times. Food price inflation is officially 11.7 percent, and this alongside the rising fuel cost is what hits workers hardest, so a new outbreak of industrial unrest is only a question of time,” he said.